Stuff

It’s been almost two months since we’ve had any polling on the London mayoral race, but Opinium have released a new poll today showing Sadiq Khan still ahead. First round preferences are Khan 31%, Goldsmith 26%, Whittle 2%, Berry 2%, Pidgeon 2%, Galloway <1% (these figures are including don't knows, hence the low scores. Without don't knows it would work out at Khan 48%, Goldsmith 42%, Berry, Whittle and Pidgeon all on 3% and Galloway on 1%.)

Given the low level of support for all the candidates outside the main two Khan is close to winning on the first round anyway, but after asking a forced choice and reallocating preferences between the final two it works out at Khan 55%, Goldsmith 45%. Full tabs are here.

@Oldnat – I do recall what @Socal said, which was to claim there had been ‘racist overtones’ in the 2015 GE via the depiction of the Scots. He did this in the same sentence as referring to ‘Jews in the 1930’s’, so he made that particular link.

I pulled him up on this, suggesting that actually it was far more to do with worries about political instability in the context of an SNP dependent coalition. @Coups then suggested that I had proved @Socal’s point (that I was being racist against myself? Hmmm…….). I then went on to have an exchange with Coups on the matter. So no – no misrepresentation of what was said, thanks very much.

As for GERS, duh! – how could I forget! The figures show notional Scottish income and expenditure when the sums are good for Scotland, but thinking this when the figures look grim is ‘silly’.

Thanks, but I’ll go with the independent experts from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Professionals on this one, rather than you. The GERS figures are dreadful for Scotland at present, and setting up an independent country against the backdrop of a 10% budget deficit, even without the dislocation of separation, would have been torrid. Is it not possible for Nationalists to admit the obvious, just for once?

“Hillary has largely lost her white working class base from 08?
Do you think this will have an impact in Illinois? I had Michigan in the bag for Hillary. I still think she will win the nomination, but Bernie looks like he will remain a viable threat for a while yet.”

It would appear to be the case that she’s lost the white working class base. I honestly don’t know how strong it ever really was but certainly she’s not doing well among that group this time around. Will it have an impact in Illinois? I think it opens up an opportunity for him. Though I think she can win Illinois and significantly. You’ve got a huge suburban population,, large African American voting base, a significant Latino population, a lot more latte liberals. Where it does open the door is Ohio. North Carolina and Missouri will be interesting to look at next week as well considering that Hillary lost both in 08′ and lost North Carolina in a landslide despite a great deal of time, effort, and money spent there.

“I don’t think it’s entirely that. I think they’ve bought into the theory peddled by Trump and Sanders that all free trade is bad and that Nafta and various free trade agreements should be scrapped. Michigan has lost manufacturing jobs, has it not? They’re imagining that they’ll come back if only the trade deals are scrapped.
They’re going down the same path they did in the 1930’s when Smoot-Hawley introduced tariffs. The retaliatory tariffs from everyone else turned the Great Recession into the Great Depression – and the USA didn’t really revive until WW2 allowed them to export again – arms, food etc.
Trade is good, but it’s very hard to explain to people who want simple solutions or who want an “other” to blame (Mexicans/Chinese are taking all the jobs etc).”

Mexican people are creating my jobs. That’s the way I see it. But then again, I can be a contrarian. I almost wonder if the auto bailout attacks backfired in Michigan. Those who are suffering with high unemployment and large student loan debt probably aren’t all that thrilled over knowing that those who already were protected received government benefit.

Trade deals can be bad. But I’m not opposed to all trade for the reasons you’ve described.

I haven’t really been following it but as I understand it the SNP voted against Sunday trading because of a particular part of the bill rather than the principle.

At present if you work Sunday’s in Scotland you get extra money, double or time and a half. The fear was that the UK bill made it more like a normal day and that over time large UK firms would bring that to Scotland.

To be honest I don’t think that is a great argument for voting on an English only matter but as with Fox hunting, and we will see more of this over time on other issues, the SNP is coming under unexpected pressure from Natural allies.

On Fox hunting the SNP was lobbied massively by Environmental, Animal Welfare and Green groups to Keep the Ban. These people were asking for SNP help to do something the SNP agreed with.

A friend who is now an MP said it had really thrown him and he called it his “Good Samaritan” moment; He had went thinking fix on Scotland and walk by the rest and then someone in need he simpathised with at the side of the road had cried for help and he found he couldn’t walk by.

It was something he just hadn’t expected and wasn’t prepared for.

In the case of Sunday trading I suspect the people who have been bending the SNP Mp’s ear over extra pay have been the trade unions including the well established and strong SNPTUG (Trade Union Group).

No doubt as ever their are political calculations, hurting the Tories is usually good politics in Scotland as is standing up to protect Scottish Workers Rights and trying to steal SLP’s mantle, but I doubt diverting from GERS counts.

The big issue will be in three to four years time. We’ll see how well the Scottish economy has weathered the Storm; Banking Crisis, Austerity, Oil Price Collapse, how we have used our new power, are we even less like the rest of the U.K. And the wider world, who’s in the Whitehouse and No 10, Trident renewal, the migrant crisis and the Eurozone.

Right now to many big domestic, economic and international issues are in flux to even think about a referendum.

” Interesting take on how some supporters react to alternative views.
I may be wrong here, so apologies in advance if this is misdirected, but I recall a week or two back you got involved in a minor discourse about perceived negativity in the Scottish referendum, talking of Nazism and racism?”

Um, it’s been a very overwhelming past couple of weeks for me to be perfectly honest. I’ve had some VERY long drives for some business trips to NorCal and Vegas and back, a couple of FPPC settlements, a couple of potential PACs in need (though I may have just been giving away free work), one client who’s just in never ending need (and I don’t know why I keep trying to help her), a convention, and I’ve been sick half the time (again). Just headaches. So if you could please refresh my memory as to what I said, I would be greatly appreciative. Because I honestly can’t remember and I’m a bit tired. And I don’t think I would have called you a fascist (not in a serious way anyway).

“It’s interesting when people who believe in something have to confront the fact that others don’t, and the more committed the belief, very often the more strident the reaction. Radical and nationalist movements possibly tend therefore to generate more hostility in the face of genuine questions.”

I feel like half the Bernie voters have a strident belief in nothing more than hatred of Hillary Clinton. Another quarter have a strident belief in how angry they are. Another 15% are just firmly sexist. Maybe 10% are actually socialist.

Also, there is needless aggression. Like the Sanders volunteer attorney I dealt with at my Nevada Caucus precinct. Right before the caucus closes, she comes up to me to angrily accuse me of dirty tricks and inform me she’s going to formally file a complaint with the Nevada Democratic Party (We’d mostly been getting along up until that point). Alleges a nefarious plot by Hillary volunteers to push Bernie voters out of the line by telling them there are separate lines. “That’s bulls**t!”‘ she exclaims. I tell her I agree. I ask her to point out which Hillary voters are giving out wrong information so I can get them to stop. (Cause’ I haven’t seen anything like that and I know that’s not part of the plan and I could imagine one of our volunteers, especially a Spanish or Asian language speaking one getting confused and accidentally telling someone the wrong thing). She won’t say. Refuses to identify anyone. Then I ask her if she can identify where those Bernie voters are or get them back to the caucus site so that we can get them back into line and make sure they get to vote. “Oh, it’s too late now!” (Like okay, what am I supposed to do then?)

In any case, I think what is troubling is when people cannot accept the fact that others think differently and must go after them. And must find ways to accelerate conflict.

Reason I asked about Illinois is as its Obama’s home state if she were to lose there it would cast a huge shadow of doubt over her status as heir apparent. North Carolina should go to Hillary, but Ohio looks like it will break for Bernie. I think Missouri will be the interesting one with its traditional N/S split demographics. Whilst my own political views are closer to Sander’s I hope Hillary does win as she has a much better chance of winning in November. Just can’t see the US electorate going for a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. With ‘Liberal’ seen by many as a negative in the US, ‘socialist’ is viewed as akin to ‘devil worshiper’ by many voters in the US.

However, I might point out that the current government does not seem to be above playing dirty (voter register/MP reductions/short money etc etc etc), so why should the other parties play by Queensbury rules?

Just don’t think SNP should be regarded any differently to all the other cynical, partisan hacks that troll their way around Westminster. They’ve demonstrated that they are very much part of the system, not outside or above it.

@Socal – don’t worry. You said something very mild about anti Scots racism in the UK GE, which I queried. I then got into a spat with others. Yours was not such a troubling post, although I personally wouldn’t characterize the UK elections as having much to do with anti Scots racism.

Changes to the Sunday Trading laws were not in the Conservative manifesto and David Cameron had specifically said he had no plans to change Sunday Trading laws in the election campaign.

The reality is that the Conservatives have a majority in the Commons, it was their own M.P.’s that scuppered the plans as much as the SNP

As to the SNP’s, was anyone really surprised they took the opportunity to defeat the Government. If they were I suggest it shows some naivety in respect of Politics in general and specifically the SNP’s end game

Afternoon folks, I wasn’t around much the last week or so, so I may have missed a few things. One thing is clear mind you, not too many people are interested in the London mayoral elections! I think there were more comments about the names of the candidates rather than the poll itself! On a wider point, though, it’ll be interesting to see what kind of turnout there will be for the local elections, as well as the various Assembly/Parliament elections. After all of the hullabuloo of the 2015 General, and the “general disenchantment with the political establishment” (C), will people just go “feck it – who cares?”.

On the SNP opposing the changing of Sunday opening hours, I think those criticising them need to look at why 30 or so Tory MPs voted against the bill – essentially, this appears to be pointless legislation that nobody really asked for (apart from the odd lobbyist). With a small majority, the Conservative leadership might be advised to pick their battles, and only legislate when there’s an actual need (the pension reforms U-turn is another example of this).

On things happening somewhat outside the remit of UKPR, Dail Eireann is meeting for the first time since the election. At the moment, there is a secret ballot to select a new Ceann Comhairle (Speaker/Chair) – normally the choice comes from the government benches, but it was decided that a secret ballot would be more appropriate. Later today, there will be a vote for a Taoiseach, although it’s highly unlikely that anyone will be chosen – still more horse-trading to be done!

It’s probably been mentioned elsewhere, but there will be 3 state elections in Germany on Sunday (there was a gloriously fact-free article in yesterday’s G!), advertised as a test of Angela Merkel’s leadership bla bla… In Baden-Wuerttemberg, the Greens are likely to be the largest party, mainly at the expense of their coalition partners the SPD. Here, the CDU seem to have lost a lot of support (perhaps because their state leader is an idiot?), with the AFD making substantial gains. On the last set of polls, a return of the Green-Red coalition is possible, but it will be very close. In Rheinland-Pfalz, both the CDU and SPD are running at 35% or so, almost exactly as they were in the last election. The AFD are at about 9%. The big losers here, interestingly, are the Greens, who at 6% are way down from 15.5% last time. Whether the FDP or die Linke reach the 5% threshold will be key to deciding who forms the government. Finally, in Sachsen-Anhalt, it looks a bit messy. The CDU are at 30% or so, down a couple from the last election, the SPD at 16-17%, down 5%, Greens at 5, FDP 4.5, die Linke 20, and the AFD 18%. S-A is an odd state, with no major cities, and a very low foreign-born population, but like some states of the former DDR, has been left a bit behind since the reunification. On these numbers, the CDU-SPD grand coalition could continue, but with under 50% of the popular vote, this points to problems down the line.

This last bit is more of an opinion than anything else, and if it’s too partisan (note to AW), it can be deleted. I’m not a fan of the AFD, nor of UKIP, nor of the Front National, nor of Trump, as I feel that their rhetoric is deliberately provocative and they resort to empty nationalist or populist tendencies (I would also add that I believe that Alex Salmond resorted to this on many occasions, while Nicola Sturgeon has generally eschewed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy). However, I also believe strongly in the freedom of speech and of democracy, and I believe that backroom deals to deny these groups power, actually strengthens their case, because it appeals to a kind of victim tendency. So, although I believe that the policies of these groups are misguided and doomed to failure, it’s sometimes better to see them exposed for their emptiness. With the influence of social media in political discourse, the loud-mouthed extremes get a lot of airtime, and the art of being opposed to everything has become popular. When politicians are forced to be accountable for their actions, rather than sniping at the sidelines, it’s very interesting how vacuous their ideas for solutions actually are. Discuss (5 marks) :)

The Bavarian Banking Association is recommending it’s members build vaults to hold these excess reserves in cash. That saves them the negative interest rate.

The only problem is, there isn’t enough cash in circulation to meet these reserves if stored physically. And the ECB is talking about withdrawing the 500 euro note – supposedly to prevent money laundering, but in reality to thwart banks holding actual cash (easier to store a few billion in 500 euro notes than 100 euro notes…)

I wonder if we’ll see a German bank melt down under the strain, and the question for the UK is how do we avoid being on the hook for some of the bailout?

Philip Davis said on DP this morning that he & other Con. backbenchers will try to get EVEL revisited after the Sunday Trading vote.

He emphasised that he had no problem with English MPs voting against on a principled basis. Asked by AN if the Government should not have put an England only issue into a Bill containing UK measures ( Bercow ruled the Bill UK wide) , Davis said it wouldn’t have made any difference.

……………….in which case I am totally confused about the effect of EVEL which I thought had been legislated on. Davis called it a “Turkey”- seems like a fair description.

There was a news piece on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation “The National” last night on the Clinton campaign which from a Canadian perspective was a jaw dropper.

A number of years ago our Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, introduced legislation reducing funding of political nominees or candidates and political parties by corporations, trade unions and organizations to $1,000 a year.

The Conservatives banned these donations altogether and the current limit on political contributions from individual Canadians is around $5,500.

In a situation where the US federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour Clinton has accepted a $657,000 fee for three speaking engagements from New York bankers Goldman Sachs.

I think, from my perspective anyway, this helps explain why so many young people, 67% of those under 45 voted for Sanders in Michigan, and why so many trade unionists are turning their backs on Clinton, 49% of union households supported Sanders versus 47% for her in Michigan.

I do not think that he will come close to winning the nomination, but if I was Clinton I would seriously consider making him my Vice-Presidential running mate.

As a Canadian the issue around “Free Trade” is the hypocrisy of US corporations of wanting Canada to eliminate all barriers to US capital entering Canada, but then imposing tariffs on Canadian soft wood lumber entering the US and the massive, often hidden, subsidies given to US agriculture.

Meanwhile millions of manufacturing jobs have left both Canada and the US, so from my perspective it is the failure of US initiated trade deals to protect the standard of living, health and safety and environmental standards that irks.

I am not impressed when under NAFTA Chapter 11 Ethyl Corporation, a US corporation manufacturing a fossil fuel additive, sues Canada for banning a known airborne pollutant:

I am not impressed when under NAFTA Chapter 11 Ethyl Corporation, a US corporation manufacturing a fossil fuel additive, sues Canada for banning a known airborne pollutant:

A good example of the shape of things to come if the UK had to enter into bi-lateral trade agreements with the US post Brexit (although to be fair no guarantee it won’t happen within the UK under WTO). As Keynes found out the US plays tough when it comes to trade negotiations.

“There are a few vidsos about the “English only” incident, which suggest that your interpretation is wrong. The live recording gives the context.”

I’m afraid not and what Bernie Sanders supporters are alleging as a defense is actually worse than what was accused. The tape clearly demonstrates the following:

1. Bernie Sanders supporters boo, jeer, and hiss at a legitimate civil rights leader (who’s in her 80’s btw) who was asked to volunteer to help caucus proceedings and reluctantly agreed.
2. Bernie Sanders supporters then loudly interrupt the caucus over something that would only help other caucus goers.
3. They ultimately succeed in booing her off the stage and force an English-only election to be conducted.
4. The announcement of which they loudly cheer and rapturously applaud.

What occurred is an absolute disgrace and the behavior of Sanders supporters was disgusting. There’s no other way around it despite what people want to argue and make excuses for.

In any case, I want caucuses abolished or severely reformed. The fact that Nevada Republicans have a more fair and open process just makes me embarrassed. These are about as democratic as electoral constituencies drawn before the Great Land Reform Act.

@AndyS – Although I know nothing about the particular chemical you talk about, I completely agree with the hypocrisy associated with some of these trade deals. BTW, from what we’ve seen during the US election campaign that TTIP will probably be dead in the water – none of the Presidential candidates, other than Clinton herself, appear to be in favour; moreover, due to the pressures that she’s been under during the primaries from Sanders, it wouldn’t surprise me if she actively opposed it in the next weeks.

On possible VP candidates, that’s a tricky question. Ruling out Sanders as a VP candidate (it’s very rare for a candidate defeated in the primaries to be chosen as VP), there’s a fairly limited set of plausible candidates. If you look through the list of current Senators and Governors, most on the Democratic side would be ruled out on age grounds and/or the fact that they represent blue states. Ideally, they’d want someone who would be seen as moderate and probably younger than Clinton herself. Any ideas?

I can confirm the misbehaviour of Sanders supporters as I have very good friends from southern Montana who are Democrats and Bernie Sanders fans, who after being verbally beaten up by Sanders supporters on Facebook will vote for Clinton in the Montana Primary.

This reaction by some Sanders supporters, however speaks to the great divide between high and low income Americans. The political “patricians” and corporate elite in the US, as you know, are absolutely hated by those living on the margins of the US economy and society.

My experience of the US is limited to Eastern Washington, Idaho and Western and South Western Montana, and the poverty and infrastructure disrepair that I have seen since 2008 is truly stunning.

And I note that Clinton does not have clean hands in all this either:

“Although Clinton said she would honor a pledge that she and the other Democratic candidates had earlier made to refrain from campaigning or participating in Michigan,[10] Clinton and Dodd drew sharp criticism from Biden, who stated that the two candidates had “chosen to hedge their bets” and had “abandoned Democrats in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina” by staying on the ballot”:

?nterestingly enough, London is almost the last of the big and/or historical European capitals to still have a right-wing administration. Paris, Berlin, Rome, Brussels, Amsterdam, Madrid, Lisbon, Athens, Bucharest, Zagreb, Stockholm, Copenhaguen, Dublin… are all ruled by left or center-left coalitions (last one to “fall” was Madrid last year).

All this talk of the SNP voting on “England only” matters… I thought EVEL had been implemented? As I understand it, the Speaker decides whether a matter is available for Scottish MPs to vote on. If they have been allowed to vote on it, then it is, in the opinion of the Speaker (someone who certainly isn’t an SNP supporter), a matter pertinent to Scotland.

That said, can we also have some idea of how many times Scottish MPs from OTHER parties (for they do exist) have voted in England-only matters? My sense is that, despite the tiny number of “other” MPs in comparison to the SNP MPs, the number of votes cast by Mundell, Carmichael and Murray exceed the combined number of votes cast by SNP MPs on England only matters. I would love to see some figures to prove or disprove that hypothesis, if anyone has them to hand.

If I am right, it would certainly make the pronouncements by the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour hypocritical. I think that some people genuinely object to the SNP voting on things rather than Scottish MPs voting on them.

“…in the opinion of the Speaker (someone who certainly isn’t an SNP supporter), a matter pertinent to Scotland.”

———-

And being fair – and we want to be fair, right? – it IS a matter for Scotland, in that if, for example, they didn’t have much Sunday trading while we did, they could fairly consider that English retail had given itself a competitive advantage over Scots.

Or it would pressure Scots to respond in kind, so it affects them anyway.

Alternatively, if Scots were already enjoying an advantage via Sunday trading, then they might vote against for us, to preserve their advantage.

If of course it turned out for some strange reason that Sunday trading undermined economically somehow, they might vote for us to have it to give themselves an advantage…

(Unless they were acting, following Gordo’s suggestion, to lead us into the light and therefore might vote to save us from ourselves!!).

But the point is, a lot of what affects England might indirectly affect Scotland too. This would be true even if not in a union. For example, if we changed our Sunday trading rules, it might still impact an Independent Scotland.

This isn’t news, It’s just that while in a Union Scots get to influence via voting, instead of having to counter economically.

Thus the SNP are happily showing an advantage of the Union thing, which contains a certain irony…

Just to be clear. EVEL as it stands at present, only prevents new laws being imposed on England. If the whole parliament vote against it it is dead anyway. It begs the question as to why the SNP opposed it.

This may well be a case of the SNP shooting itself in the foot. There will undoubtedly be more legislation to come in due course.

I thought EVEL had been implemented? As I understand it, the Speaker decides whether a matter is available for Scottish MPs to vote on. If they have been allowed to vote on it, then it is, in the opinion of the Speaker (someone who certainly isn’t an SNP supporter), a matter pertinent to Scotland.

In so far as EVEL exists at all, it’s about giving MPs for English constituencies a veto on English clauses in a Bill. But it doesn’t work the other way – they can’t push through new clauses in a Bill against the will of the Commons as a whole. Even if something is added to a Bill it’s still possible for the Commons as a whole to stop it by voting against the Third Reading.

As some of us pointed out when the idea of EVEL was first mooted, there’s no way in which it could ever work without a separate English Parliament for those laws and more important, a separate English government to implement them.

@??DY SHADRACK
I admit I didn’t know this. In France, Greece and Italy this situation, the so-called “anatra zoppa” (lame duck) is not possible because the list of the party (or parties) that support the person who is elected mayor gets a majority bonus (calculated by different methods in the 3 cases) so as to have a comfortable OM in the council.